Originally posted by expat01
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Going to war
Originally posted by DeV View PostThe wording of the WP would indicate that primarily the EPV will be the one completing overseas taskings, however the CPVs do have to be flexible.
It was the week of the brinkmanship between the US and Russia over the CUBAN missile crisis. I'm not sure what was in the minds of those upstairs but we thought it was real.
Whatever ships we have or get, then they MUST be defendable, and carry out ANY task in their area of operations.
- Likes 12
Comment
-
Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?
I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Whatever ships we have or get, then they MUST be defendable, and carry out ANY task in their area of operations.
Again we are dealing with Fishery Protection vessels with some minor warfare capability.
Modern day frigates are a quantum leap from where the NS will be for the next 15 years at least. Every Navy in the world deploying singular units deploys them in tandem with other navies who can support them or indeed the vessels are self supporting.
We could go down the road of buying off the shelf products armed to the teeth both offensively and defensively but thy are not suitable for deployment in our waters.
Buy Absalon by all means, but don't expect to get another hull replacement for twenty years.
Buy plenty of OPVs and deploy them alongside people capable of offering the support we require in certain threat areas, but don't put all the eggs in one basket and come crying when the arse falls out of the basket.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by pym View PostAncientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?
I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
That's not say that the state should not have at least an idea of what goes on in its waters, and the capability to impose its will in those waters, but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...
- Likes 2
Comment
-
I fear that the budget for an ASW capability would more than equal the entire defence budget, including pensions
but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...
the voice of reasonCovid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Just out of curiosity why are we discussing ASW for the CPV replacement?
The only reason I suggested the "adapted Baltic Tugs" was because If I am not mistaken there was a report by the Deptartment for Transport identifying a need for a ETV, now maybe they are not ideal for the navy, but is building a new ship based on the specification of a ship that was originally designed to patrol Hong Kong really ideal either?It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
It was a new age...It was the end of history.
It was the year everything changed.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
ASW Training Naval Service
Originally posted by pym View PostAncientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?
I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
In the last few years of their lives the Corvettes were demilitarised partially in response to an incident on Cliona, and to signify the need for new vessels.
I firmly believe what we need now in Naval Tonnage, must be left in the hands of the Navy and the wisdom of the Government WP.
In the post war period we were up to speed with the then technologies but got left behind when we started building ships to approved specifications which by and large frowned on firepower.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
The counter-mine/-IED part of the replacement programme have probably covered what's in the link below, but if not, here's something to enjoy over your coffee break
* http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...eeded-4809232/
In a nutshell, the head of the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group thinks a robust, flexible, deployable MCM capability will be required into the future. Now he would say that, wouldn't he...
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally from > Foreign Naval Visits
Can those with better knowledge and experience than mine comment on the suitability of a HNoMS Otra type vessel for inshore fisheries protection?
We know that Otra and her Alta class sisters are competent mine warfare vessels, particularly since their Minesniper III upgrade.
Could this design be the basis for a Peacock class CPV replacement? Speed, stability and shallow draught would appear to be very attractive features.
Undoubtedly there would need to be redesign to facilitate dual Rhib operation and associated facilities, modern accommodation for 21 day endurance.
Basic Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta-class_minesweeper
Comment
-
Originally posted by Medsailor View PostThis will tell you something about seakeeping limitations.
[ATTACH]8205[/ATTACH]
In general, given that the capabilities expected from your CPVs are roughly analogous to what many expect from OPVs, especially in terms of seakeeping, then an SES solution appears overly complicated and has a definite upper limit for sea conditions that occurs when the seaway is high enough to impact the centre body of the vessel. What makes them so good for MCMVs is their (relatively) high transit speed compared to displacement hulls, low noise and pressure signature, low susceptibility to shock and the relatively large deck area for a given size/tonnage.
http://www.janes.com/article/54671/p...warfare-vessel
Comment
-
Not at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
I really like the sound of that, na grohmití, particularly as the RN's C3 project currently looks like this Venator 110. That's a proper scrappy little frigate!
Far be it from me to enter into theological disputes found elsewhere regarding the true meaning of the recent Defence White Paper, but the gist I take from it, and the recent missive on the possibility of a 9 ship Navy is that we're looking at 1 Eithne replacement, 2 Peacock replacements, and perhaps 1 (for-the-time-being undefined) other.
My belief is, and please forgive me if I'm stumbling in the dark here, that the 2 Peacock replacement Coastal Patrol Vessels/Mine Counter-Measures Vessels will be spending 75% or more of their time doing inshore fisheries protection. I understand that draught in the 3m range is a big plus when you're doing that kind of work, so my eye has been drawn to this unlovely, but functional, beast.
I'm no naval architect but I believe a modest stretch could produce two very high standard direct replacements for LÉ Orla & Ciara. They could be enabled for dual Rhib operation with all modern facilities, accommodation for 21 day endurance, and lest we forget; should we actually ever need it, a top-end mine countermeasures capability.
All that said, I'm a huge fan of the Venator for the NS, but if and when it will ever happen is, as I understand it, all up in the air. Undoubtedly there would be the prospect of getting two of them at a relatively competitive price tacked onto the end of a RN order for six or eight. But there are just so many unknowns and variables at work here, my understanding of recent decisions in the UK MoD is that if the Venator/Type 31 Patrol Frigate does see the light of day, it will not be until the 2030s. That could put them in the running to replace the P50s and even, invoking Murphy's special law of warship production scheduling, the P60s.
Irish/Dutch/British exercise 2050 Something for our friends in the Silent Service. SSK Submarine Corvette, Patrol Frigates, and Environmental Protection Vessel are ours!
If we're looking for 2019-ish replacements for Eithne and the Peacocks featuring enhanced sea-keeping abilities, functionality, endurance and modern accommodation for the North Atlantic winter, we could always go for exactly that. Róisín++ HPV. It's what we know, it's the safe bet, and in any kind of sensible world, assumptions just given, we'd get four of them for our 9 ship Navy without much resistance at all.
The remaining issue then would be, are the P50s suitable for inshore fisheries protection and MCM work? I'm inclined to think that the P60s would be better suited to the latter. It's all about the deck-space[?]. But apart from the addition of the necessary mine hunting equipment; would major work be needed to mitigate the effects of things that are prone, on occasion, to go boom?
I'm particularly keen to hear opinions on to the mine countermeasures issue specifically. Now that it's been enshrined in a white paper following extensive consultation with our gallant friends in Europe; do we now actually have to get [more] suitable Mine Counter-Measures/Coastal Patrol Vessels, or is the Samuel Beckett destined to become the most glamorous minesweeper ever to see the light of God's creation?
How the man himself would get a kick out of that!
Bottom line, are the P50s/P60s suitable for this type of work? From a technical/engineering/safety standpoint? Or must we embrace the horror?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmití View PostNot at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.
http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...asure-vessels/
So when all is said and done, I would say focus on building a CPV that is fit for and focused on the CPV roles envisaged and incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow the elements required for limited MCM activities to be plugged in as and when necessary. Otherwise risk ending up with a solution that is neither fish nor fowl.
Most importantly, manage expectations. Don't let anyone think for a moment that a bolt-on system can provide the full spectrum of capabilities.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
LÉ James Joyce in exercise with NATO MCMVs
Origin > Foreign Naval Visits
LÉ James Joyce exercised yesterday with the Standing Nato Mine Counter Measures Group off the East Coast.
Irish Naval Service Photos
NATO MCG1 Photos
Any deductions to be drawn from this do you think?
Has just occurred to me that the P60s enjoy the best organic diving support facilities in the NS, and surely also in the flotilla on exercise yesterday.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment